The Rushdie Affair: Lessons for Educators

When Iran's Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini threatened the life of the
author Salman Rushdie last month, an international drama began. Mr.
Rushdie's novel, The Satanic Verses, was banned in most of the Arab
world, as well as in India, Pakistan, France, and West Germany. Several
major American booksellers removed the book from their shelves to
protect the lives of their employees and patrons.

This series of events, striking directly at fundamental rights of
citizens in a free society, should cause American educators to think
hard about whether and how they are teaching their students the meaning
of such rights.

Our teaching of history and social studies must be grounded in
democratic values. To hold the nation to its best ideals, our children
need to know what those ideals are and where they came from.

Would our students know enough to be offended if pressure groups
tried to prevent controversial views from being expressed in their
community or their school? We can't expect them to be upset about the
international campaign to suppress Mr. Rushdie's book--or about the
removal of a book from their own school library's shelves--unless we
have taught them about the long, unfinished struggle for freedom of
expression.

To mark the publication date of The Satanic Verses, the Association
of American Publishers, the American Booksellers Association, and the
American Library Association jointly issued a simple and eloquent
statement:

Free people write books;

Free people publish books;

Free people sell books;

Free people buy books;

Free people read books.

As the writer Pete Hamill pointed out on a recent "MacNeil/Lehrer
Newshour," large numbers of Americans died at Anzio and Normandy Beach
defending such freedoms. But in an age when terrorists can place an
undetectable plastic bomb inside a cigarette pack or a cassette player,
many people are unwilling to risk their lives for the sake of a writer
they have never heard of or a book they have not read--nor even for
their favorite author and most beloved book.

In the United States, we all too often take our freedoms for
granted. So smug have we become that some school districts no longer
teach the historical evolution of our political rights and freedoms.
Some teach no world history at all, while others allot the history of
Western Europe no more time in the curriculum than that of Asia,
Africa, India, Eastern Europe, or Latin America.

Our children need to know the history, principles, and institutions
of the Western society in which they will be citizens. Just as we want
our students to esteem themselves, we should also want them to value
their nation--not from the perspective of blind patriotism but in a
spirit that will encourage them to improve their country.

Of course, they must learn about racism and religious bigotry, the
Holocaust and slavery. These wrongs are part of Western history, too,
and they must be taught honestly so that students understand that the
rights we hold dear grew out of battles against injustice.

Some global educators shy away from endorsing democratic values--for
fear that they might appear pro-Western. But this position is mistaken.
It is true that standards of beauty and taste vary from culture to
culture, and that we must learn to appreciate other cultures through
their own eyes. But we cannot apply that outlook to the realm of
political rights and civil liberties.

The condition of rights and liberties varies drasti cally from one
country to another, and students should know that. Unfortunately, as
the Ayatollah's pronouncements now remind us, many nations do not
respect freedom of speech and expression. Some routinely ban books for
political and religious reasons. In others, writers languish in jail
for making the mistake of speaking their minds too plainly.

In many countries, people suffer discrimination because of their
race or gender or class or sexual orientation. Some nations do not
permit free elections or free assembly; some do not tolerate freedom of
religion; some do not allow free trade unions; some do not permit
criticism of the government or freedom of the press.

All of these are basic human rights that ought to be protected, not
abused, by government. They should be seen as universal standards by
which to judge the actions of others as well as ourselves.

It would be the height of ethnocentrism to believe that only
Westerners care about human rights. Every protest against apartheid in
South Africa, for example, is founded on the assumption that these
rights are for everyone, not just for residents of the Western
world.

But the democratic movement began in the West long ago, and it has
since provided the vocabulary and ideology for freedom-seeking people
in every country. To understand contemporary struggles for justice,
equality, and liberty throughout the world, we should be familiar with
such landmarks in the pursuit of freedom as the Magna Carta, the
English Bill of Rights, the American Declaration of Independence,
Constitution, and Bill of Rights, and the French Declaration of the
Rights of Man.

The battle is far from ended. It continues with the work and ideas
of men and women like Martin Luther King Jr., Susan B. Anthony,
Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Bishop Desmond Tutu, Mohandas Gandhi, Andrei
Sakharov, Lech Walesa, Elie Wiesel, Fang Lizhi, and Wei Jingsheng. Our
students should learn about them; their voices represent not a series
of disparate, single-issue campaigns but rather the basic principles
that command governments to respect the rights of their citizens.

We should teach the history of freedom as a worldwide struggle, one
shared by peoples of all societies. We should not teach children to
suspend judgment on barbaric practices in other countries--like torture
or infanticide or wife-burning or suppression of dissent. Fundamental
human rights are not everywhere respected, but--as dissidents around
the world keep reminding us--they are everywhere the same.

If we do not teach the history of civil liberties and human rights
that we hold precious, then our children will not have the knowledge or
interest to be outraged when they are violated, nor the will to defend
and preserve them.

Diane Ravitch, adjunct professor of history and education at
Teachers College, Columbia University, is the author of The Troubled
Crusade: American Education, 1945-1980, and co-author of What Do Our
17-Year-Olds Know?

Vol. 08, Issue 24, Page 36

Notice: We recently upgraded our comments. (Learn more here.) If you are logged in as a subscriber or registered user and already have a Display Name on edweek.org, you can post comments. If you do not already have a Display Name, please create one here.

Ground Rules for Posting
We encourage lively debate, but please be respectful of others. Profanity and personal attacks are prohibited. By commenting, you are agreeing to abide by our user agreement.
All comments are public.